The proposed move of the LIV golf tournament to the course in the north parklands highlights three central concerns of Ethical Events: environmental harm; governance that lacks sufficient transparency and accountability; and inadequate attention to the protection of human rights. Ethical Events therefore asked the declared candidates ( as at14th November 2025) for the Adelaide electorate questions that centre on these three issues. Julian Amato (Liberal); Bronte Colmer (Greens); Lucy Hood (Labor) and Keiran Snape (Independent) were asked to respond to these questions (see list below). The candidates were informed that their responses would be reproduced verbatim on the Ethical Events website:
- What is your response to the opposition from some Indigenous Australians to what they regard as a threat to Country and to heritage (both Aboriginal and colonial heritages) from changes to existing parkland to accommodate LIV golf?
- What is your response to concerns about the adequacy of consultation with the Indigenous community with respect to this takeover of parklands, both before the legislation was passed and since that time?
- What is your response to the concerns about potential tree, and biodiversity, loss in the north parklands, including significant and regulated trees, as a result of the planned changes?
- What is your response to concerns that this establishes a precedent for further loss of parkland?
- What is your response to concern about the government’s legislative takeover of a slab of the north parklands?
- What is your response to unease that this establishes a precedent for government acquisition of land or property without comprehensive consultation?
All candidates were asked to provide answers to these questions by December 1st 2025. No response was received from Julian Amato, Bronte Colmer or Lucy Hood. The Independent candidate, Keiran Snape, did respond and his answers are reproduced (verbatim) below. A copy of the letter of invitation can be found here.
Responses from Kieran Snape:
What is your response to the opposition from some Indigenous Australians to what they regard as a threat to Country and to heritage (both Aboriginal and colonial heritages) from changes to existing parkland to accommodate LIV golf?
This opposition is completely understandable, and I share the concerns of these groups. The threat that these changes pose to significant Aboriginal cultural sites is incredibly worrying.
What is your response to concerns about the adequacy of consultation with the Indigenous community with respect to this takeover of parklands, both before the legislation was passed and since that time?
It seems that very little consultation was completed prior to the passing of this legislation. The consultation since has been, in my opinion tokenistic, and inaccessible to the broader Kaurna community.
What is your response to the concerns about potential tree, and biodiversity, loss in the north parklands, including significant and regulated trees, as a result of the planned changes?
The potential impact to the ecosystem is completely at odds with the government’s stance on climate and environment. A well-respected golf course designer has hypothesised that the minimum number of trees lost would be 5,000. This is completely unacceptable and will undoubtedly result in loss of habitat and biodiversity in the area.
What is your response to concerns that this establishes a precedent for further loss of parkland?
What is your response to concern about the government’s legislative takeover of a slab of the north parklands?
What is your response to unease that this establishes a precedent for government acquisition of land or property without comprehensive consultation?
These actions from the state government have set a precedent that there is opportunity for the Park Lands to no longer be maintained in accordance with Light’s vision. More importantly, it is testing the public reception to this kind of takeover. Without significant backlash, there is very little to stop legislation of this kind being pushed through again. The Labor government will win a majority at the next election. Without a strong opposition in parliament, they will be able to continue to do as they wish. Unfortunately, it is all too common for public consultation to be disregarded in matters of development. I would like to see impacted communities adequately consulted, with a commitment to take any feedback on board and attempt to adapt projects in line with the needs of the community.
As a north Adelaide resident who was not consulted about the LIVE golf plans which btw is moving here because the current LIVE golf nearby residents are sick of the event. I will be voting keiran snape. He clearly has some humanity.
I am very concerned about the LIV golf proposal and agree with Kieran Snape’s responses. Why no response from a Green’s’ candidate?
I am a resident of North Adelaide and, until his recent death, walked my dog on the golf course at least once a week, as do many others.
My major concerns are with:
Loss of trees, leading to CO2 release and loss of habitat for many species, especially birds. Replacement is better than nothing, but many of the trees are large and replacement saplings will take years to achieve the level of carbon capture which is needed now (in addition to the CO2 loss from removal).
Further loss of land to the Parklands are an indication that the Government may feel free to continue to acquire more of the parklands for other projects, restricting community use and even the simple enjoyment of our very beautiful green belt.
In relation to the Golf, despite its popularity, I’m not sure of the evidence. Liv is clearly a popular form of golf but within the sport is not generally accepted and the competition could collapse from the administrators of the majors taking back control of the international game. Another possible scenario is the Australian competition being taken over by a competing state offering the owners a proposal that out bids Adelaide, as happened with the Australian Grand Prix. It would be particularly painful then to see the damage to a course, which is no longer required for LIV golf, and which will require years to repair and at great cost. There are private courses in Adelaide, at which LIV has been run successfully. Why not avoid the risks to the parklands by continuing their hosting the tournaments, on rotation between them if necessary?
Finally, the current club house is an attractive building, fitting in to its surroundings. I’m not sure of its heritage status, but I understand it is likely to be replaced.
I’ll leave the complex issues surrounding sports-washing to others, not that isn’t important. I believe there are sufficient reasons in Adelaide to not proceed with this project.